SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Evaluating the efficacy of esmolol in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersistent tachycardia in septic shock is associated with adverse outcomes, yet optimal management remains uncertain. Esmolol, a short-acting β1-selective blocker, has been investigated as a strategy to control heart rate and attenuate excessive sympathetic activation. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of esmolol in adult patients with septic shock.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar was conducted from database inception to March 28, 2025. Reference lists and clinical trial registries were also screened. Randomized controlled trials comparing esmolol plus standard care with standard care alone in adults with septic shock were included. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and lactate.
resultsThree randomized controlled trials involving 314 patients were included. Esmolol was associated with a significant reduction in 28-day mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20-0.53; I2 = 0%). Heart rate was significantly reduced at both 24 h (day 1) (MD - 8.50 bpm, 95% CI - 10.82 to - 6.17) and 48 h (day 2) (MD - 16.60 bpm, 95% CI - 20.03 to - 13.17). No statistically significant difference in MAP was observed between groups (MD 0.10 mmHg, 95% CI - 3.46 to 3.66; I2 = 53%). Although the included studies did not report clinically meaningful differences in lactate levels, differences in outcome reporting precluded quantitative synthesis.
conclusionsEsmolol therapy may improve heart rate control and reduce 28-day mortality in carefully selected patients with septic shock without adversely affecting MAP. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because they are based on a limited number of randomized trials and are subject to clinical heterogeneity and potential risk of bias. Larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and define the optimal use of esmolol in septic shock. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024584599).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.